|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The relevence of Biblical claims to science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
This is intended as a continuation of an off-topic conversation in the now-closed thread "Who is Held to Higher Standards at EvC?" In that thread, Maestro232 made a strong claim that science and scientists were deliberately rejecting the spiritual aspects of the world in their attempts to understand it - hence missing out on "higher truths".
Since this is a similar claim to that of mike-the-wiz, and to a lesser extent dshortt in another thread, I feel that it is important to continue that discussion. A reprise of the relevant posts follows:
in post 304 Quetzal writes: You are still insisting that the "spiritual realm" has relevance when discussing the natural world. Very well, please answer the following questions using whatever Scripture, Apocrypha, "spirit channeling" or whatever trips your fancy: 1. Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado? 2. Why are there tigers on Bali but not Lompok? 3. Why is the venom of Bothrops insularis 3-5 times more toxic than any other member of the Bothrops genus? 4. Why are there 23 species of tenrecs on Madagascar, but not one single species found anywhere else in the world, even in similar habitats, even as fossils? 5. Explain the disappearance of the once highly diverse orders of ammonites and trilobites. Why did they disappear at different times? 6. Bonus challenge: Explain, using spiritual or biblical referents, why Cecropia species are the first plants to regrow in degraded or edge habitat zones - even though said plants are never found in undegraded habitat. This is your opportunity to prove that an element in evolutionary theory - ecological assembly rules - is better understood using the Bible than evolution. Please note that "God did it that way" or "God works in mysterious ways" are insufficient in and of themselves. A bit of flesh on the assertion will be required to convince me that spirituality has any relevance for science. After some toing-and-froing, Maestro's final reply appears to deny his initial stance:
in post 312 Maestro232 writes: If those are really the questions you wish to make your life's goal in answering, that is fair, but I think there are additional important things to discover about life as well as those thing. There is a context in which the Bible concerns itself. And, it concerns itself a great deal with creation. No, it doesn't answer those questions. But those are not the only related questions. There indeed may be "additional important things to discover about life" as Maestro states. However, that was not the nature of the challenge. The questions I posed are totally relevant to Maestro's original contention: scientists are missing truth by rejecting the spiritual. A response to these questions will go a long way to convincing me that spirituality has some relevance. In addition, these are the types of questions that scientists - evolutionary scientists - routinely address using only the methodological naturalism of science. The challenge of course is open to any who wish to reply. I would add that if it is NOT possible to answer my six questions using recourse to the Bible or spirit, then the contention that the supernatural has relevance to science is rendered moot. Added by edit: Eliminated extraneous commentary, and added a few sentences to give the topic more relevance. This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-20-2004 03:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
I feel that this is a very important topic - I'm moving it now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
This is the OP from Maestro's thread on nearly the same subject as Quetzal.
quote: This post should be considered along with Quetzal's for the topic. AdminIRH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
My concern is that this is not a discussion about whether spirituality is relevent to science. I'm happy to say that it need not be. The title of this topic suggests that, and I fear it will lose participants as such. I think the real question is whether the creation claims in the Bible deal with the physical, and are thus relevent. It is, in fact, the notion that the Biblical claims are only spiritually relevent, and thus not relevent here as in incorrect claim. If agreed, can we keep the focus there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I would tend to agree with Maestro. His topic is quite clearly related to the origins discussion. I would like mine to focus on the practical aspects of his original claim: that science is missing a bet when not considering the spiritual in its conclusions and methodology.
edited to add: However, AdminIRH has convinced me that consolidating the two topics may be a worthwhile endeavor. We'll see. This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-20-2004 04:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
I'm afraid I'm still not sure. I really do think your threads are very similar, and deserve to be treated together.
Maestro, you want to discuss if the creation claims in the bible are as valid as science in the evolution and creation debate. Quetzal, you want to examine the practical application of Maetro's claim, if it is considered to be true. It looks to me like two halves of a debate - the investigation of a claim, and the results if it is true. Granted, Quetzal includes spirituality in general, but the principle is the same. Am I simply misunderstanding your OP's? AdminIRH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
on the questions and suggestsion forum I suggested:
Perhaps we could agree to change the title to make it more inclusive of both our concerns. e.g. "Biblical claims on creation: irrelevent spirituality or physical relevence?" That would appease me. Otherwise, I think we might not be quite on the same track.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Am I simply misunderstanding your OP's? I'd say you're on target with my intent. It is certainly the practical aspects of the question that I'd like to explore. And I'm quite willing to let the general question of "spirituality" subside in deference to Maestro's desire to discuss the Bible as it relates to the physical world. The challenge in my OP remains unchanged regardless of whether we speak of spirituality in a general sense or more narrowly in a Biblical Christian sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, my problem is that "Biblical claims on creation: irrelevent spirituality or physical relevence?" is not the area of my topic. I posited very specific cases for discussion. A general discussion of origins is NOT my intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Admin suggests "The relevence of Biblical claims to science"
Would this work for you? I think I can live with that myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, we can try it I guess. After all, what's in a name?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maestro232 Inactive Member |
Fabulous! Quetzel, let us note that for this brief moment we are in agreement.
I'm off for the day, but I look forward to posting on the topic tomorrow. Ciao.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
Indeed...
Don't worry - I did say that if the topic diverges too much I would make a separate thread. For the time being, let's try them together. Changing thread name now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Would this be a good subject for a great debate?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024